Get Terminal Log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context such as time range, retention window, pagination, or ordering. It adds none of that — it only restates the record type, which is already implied by the name and title.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single economical phrase with no filler and the key noun phrase front-loaded. It is not padded, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-argument read tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description correctly identifies what is returned (online/offline records). Nothing critical is missing, though a hint about time coverage or result volume would have made it fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase '获取终端上下线记录' names a specific verb (获取/retrieve) and resource (终端上下线记录 — terminal online/offline records), which distinguishes it from get_terminal_list (current terminals) and get_wireless_terminal_log (wireless-only log). It is clear, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those close siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related alternatives (get_terminal_list, get_wireless_terminal_log, get_dhcp_log). The agent must infer that this returns historical up/down events rather than the current terminal inventory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.